Tight-beam burning damage

[JazzJedi]

Why isn't tight-beam burning damage it's own damage type? I realize it sort of is, but there is no abbreviation for it, and you have to check the weapon description to see, rather than the weapon table.

Also, wouldn't tight-beam burning be subject to the same restrictions of piercing when it comes to attacks against vitals and for affecting unliving/machines/homogeneous? So couldn't you just say that tight-beam burning is piercing incendiary?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by JazzJedi

Also, wouldn't tight-beam burning be subject to the same restrictions of piercing when it comes to attacks against vitals and for affecting unliving/machines/homogeneous?

What restrictions?

Originally Posted by JazzJedi

So couldn't you just say that tight-beam burning is piercing incendiary?

No, you wouldn't want to do that.

-The incendiary effects of tight beam burning are not the same as the incendiary modifier.

-It is desirable for DR that discriminates by damage type to not conflate tight-beam burning attacks with piercing attacks.

[AlexanderHowl]

Tight-beam burning damage functions differently piercing damage. It does not cause blunt trauma and it usually has superior incendiary effects. For example, a 10d tight-beam burning attack effectively deals an average of 35 damage but is considered 3.5 damage for incendiary purposes (3.5 times as incendiary as attacks with the incendiary modifier). While incendiary attacks can ignite highly flammable objects paper, the 10d laser can ignite flammable objects like dry wood. It is an important distinction, especially in realistic campaigns that keep track of stray attacks.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by JazzJedi

there is no abbreviation for it, and you have to check the weapon description to see, rather than the weapon table.

*checks B272/4* I guess Force Sword isn't Tight-Beam...?

I think "burn" is probably the longest of the abbreviations since others are either two (cr or pi) or three (cut or imp or aff) letters.

What if we did something like "ti" for tight-beam burning and "wi" for wide-beam burning?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

*checks B272/4* I guess Force Sword isn't Tight-Beam...?

I think "burn" is probably the longest of the abbreviations since others are either two (cr or pi) or three (cut or imp or aff) letters.

What if we did something like "ti" for tight-beam burning and "wi" for wide-beam burning?

Force Sword is clarified to be tight-beam on UT166.

Corrosion is equally long (corr), albeit less common. Technically, huge piercing also has the same number of characters (pi++). For abbreviations, if needed, burn for normal burning and tbb for tight-beam burning would work just fine.